OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine whether speech recognition scores (SRS) differ between adults with long-term auditory deprivation in the implanted ear and adults who received cochlear implant (CI) in the nonsound-deprived ear, either for hearing aid-assisted or due to rapidly deteriorating hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Speech recognition scores at evaluations (3 and 14 months postimplantation) conducted with CI alone at 60-dB sound pressure level intensity were compared in 15 patients (4 with bilateral severe hearing loss; 11 with asymmetric hearing loss, 7 of which had contralateral hearing aid), all with long-term auditory deprivation (mean duration 16.9 years) (group A), and in 15 other patients with postlingual hearing loss (10 symmetric, 5 asymmetric with bimodal stimulation) (controls, group B). RESULTS: Comparison of mean percentage of correctly recognized words on speech audiometry at 3 and 14 months showed improvement within each group (P < 0.05). Between-group comparison showed no significant difference at 3 (P = 0.17) or 14 months (P = 0.46). Comparison of SRSs in group A (bimodal stimulation [n = 7] and binaural sound deprivation [n = 4]) versus group B showed no significant differences at 3 (bimodal stimulation P = 0.16; binaural sound deprivation P = 0.19) or 14 months (bimodal stimulation P = 0.14; binaural sound deprivation P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Speech recognition scores in monaural and binaural sound-deprived ears did not significantly differ from ears with unilateral cochlear implantation in nonsound-deprived ears when tested with CI alone. Improvement in the implanted worse ear indicates that it could be a potential candidate ear for cochlear implantation even when sound deprived. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1905-1910, 2016.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: To determine whether speech recognition scores (SRS) differ between adults with long-term auditory deprivation in the implanted ear and adults who received cochlear implant (CI) in the nonsound-deprived ear, either for hearing aid-assisted or due to rapidly deteriorating hearing loss. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective study. METHODS: Speech recognition scores at evaluations (3 and 14 months postimplantation) conducted with CI alone at 60-dB sound pressure level intensity were compared in 15 patients (4 with bilateral severe hearing loss; 11 with asymmetric hearing loss, 7 of which had contralateral hearing aid), all with long-term auditory deprivation (mean duration 16.9 years) (group A), and in 15 other patients with postlingual hearing loss (10 symmetric, 5 asymmetric with bimodal stimulation) (controls, group B). RESULTS: Comparison of mean percentage of correctly recognized words on speech audiometry at 3 and 14 months showed improvement within each group (P < 0.05). Between-group comparison showed no significant difference at 3 (P = 0.17) or 14 months (P = 0.46). Comparison of SRSs in group A (bimodal stimulation [n = 7] and binaural sound deprivation [n = 4]) versus group B showed no significant differences at 3 (bimodal stimulation P = 0.16; binaural sound deprivation P = 0.19) or 14 months (bimodal stimulation P = 0.14; binaural sound deprivation P = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: Speech recognition scores in monaural and binaural sound-deprived ears did not significantly differ from ears with unilateral cochlear implantation in nonsound-deprived ears when tested with CI alone. Improvement in the implanted worse ear indicates that it could be a potential candidate ear for cochlear implantation even when sound deprived. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4. Laryngoscope, 126:1905-1910, 2016.
Authors: Milena Zucca; Andrea Albera; Roberto Albera; Carla Montuschi; Beatrice Della Gatta; Andrea Canale; Innocenzo Rainero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-25 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Andrea Canale; Giulia Dalmasso; Roberto Albera; Sergio Lucisano; George Dumas; Flavio Perottino; Andrea Albera Journal: Audiol Res Date: 2022-07-22